119 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

Date of Decision: 12.09.2025 SURAJ SHARMA ...APPELLANT Vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMARI Present:- Mr. Narender Singh Kamboj, Advocate for the applicant-appellant.

Mr. Maninder Singh, Addl. AG, Punjab.

Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate with Mr. Deepak Goyat, Advocate and Mr. Nikhil Sehrawat, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3-PSPCL.

****

ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J. (ORAL)

1. Appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 15.09.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No.-20538-2023, whereby appellant’s claim for appointment has been rejected by the learned Single Judge on the ground that he did not possess requisite eligibility on the last date fixed for making of application.

2. The respondents had issued an Advertisement No.CRA 298/21 dated 21.05.2021 (for short, ‘Advertisement’) inviting applications for appointment to the post of Clerks. The closing date for online registration was 20.06.2021. The application fee was to be deposited by 02.07.2021. The qualification for appointment included passing of Punjabi at Matriculation or its equivalent levels up to the last date of submission of online application.

3. In terms of the Advertisement therefore, the candidate was required to possess qualification of Punjabi and passing of Matriculation or its equivalent examination. The appellant applied for appointment to the post pursuant to the Advertisement, aforesaid, but had not annexed any Matriculation Certificate of Punjabi or equivalent thereof. The candidates were called for documents verification on 07.07.2022 by when also the appellant was not possessed of Punjabi qualification, required as per the Advertisement.

4. It is for the first time on 17.08.2022, that the appellant has produced the Punjabi Certificate as per which he had knowledge of Punjabi up to Matriculation level. The Certificate relied upon by the appellant is also issued to him in the month of July, 2022. It is, therefore, apparent from the Certificate produced by the appellant, that he was not possessed of eligibility for appointment to the post on the last date fixed for submission of application. It is for this reason that the writ petition of the appellant has been dismissed.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant suffers from disability (Visually Handicapped) and is an Ex-serviceman. He, further, places reliance upon the provisions contained in Punjab Civil Services (General and Common Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994 (for short, ‘Rules of1994’). Rule 17 of the Rules of 1994 refers to knowledge of Punjabi language. Fourth proviso to Clause 17 is relied upon by the appellant, which reads as under:-

“Provided further that where a ward of Defence Service Personnel, who is a bona fide resident of Punjab State, is appointed by different appointment, he shall have to pass an examination of Punjabi Language equivalent to Matriculation Standard or he shall have to qualify a test conducted by the Language Wing of the Department of Education of Punjab Government within a period of two years from the date of his appointment.”

6. Learned counsel for the appellant places reliance upon the following judgments:-

(i) Ram Kumar Gijroya v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Anr, 2016 (4) SCC 754.

(ii) Roopa Sharma v. State of Punjab, 1997 (2) SCT 706. (iii) Naresh Kumar v. State of Punjab, 1993 (3) SCT 156.

(iv) Avinash Dalmotra v. State of Punjab and others, 2024 (1) SLR 891.

7. It is submitted that even where the Certificate is submitted late yet the Supreme Court has directed that such Certificate be taken on record.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents places reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mohit Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 SCC Online SC 1125 wherein the Supreme Court has observed as under:-

“14. What follows from the above decision is that irrespective of